PDA

View Full Version : Who is the party of the rich?



LWW
10-16-2007, 04:57 AM
OH MY! (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05433.cfm)

[ QUOTE ]
The New York City sky was perfectly blue, and the Great Lawn splendidly green on an August Sunday morning in Central Park. The humidity would not rear its head for a few hours, and the 80-degree air felt perfect. It was an ideal day for a game of lawn croquet.

Decked in varied attire (men in white tie or seersucker, and women in ball gowns and tiaras or tennis whites and pearl necklaces), the “Billionaires for Bush” enjoyed some croquet and badminton, while sipping champagne. The group, one could imagine, gathered some attention, especially when passersby noticed their signs, which read, “Taxes are not for everyone” and “Widen the income gap.”

The revelers were not truly billionaires. Nor, as you might have guessed, were they “for Bush.” They were drama students and protestors in New York during the Republican National Convention to make a point. Bush’s policies, they implied through sarcasm and entertainment, benefited the very rich at the expense of everyone else.

The idea that the very wealthy are Republicans (and the corresponding implication that everyone else who is not wealthy is a Democrat) goes unchallenged in the media. Everyone knows that...

...Hedge-fund king George Soros, worth $7.2 billion, famously spent $23.5 million on his anti-Bush crusade in 2004. Peter Lewis, president of Progressive insurance company (worth $1.9 billion), spent just less than $23 million against Bush in 2004. Steve Bing inherited $600 million from his father’s business building luxury apartments and is now a movie producer. Bing reportedly once checked into the Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles and stayed there for nine years. He spent $13.9 million against Bush in 2004.

Those men, all billionaires or multi-millionaires thanks to corporate success, were the top four contributors to 527s in the 2004 campaign. Number five, realtor Bob Perry, spent over $8 million in favor of Bush. Number 6, developer and owner of the San Diego Chargers Alex Spanos, spent $5 million to help the president.

The primary effect of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws was to drive political donors away from the parties (who could no longer accept “soft money”) and towards these 527 groups. At well over a half-billion dollars, the 527s raised and spent more than either the Kerry or the Bush campaign. For rich people looking to influence the 2004 elections, 527s were the place to be. (As a point of comparison, the most generous donor directly to campaigns and parties in 2004 gave less than a half-million dollars — one-fortieth of Soros’s largesse.)

Again, the top four donors to 527s in 2004 — and the only donors to spend in the eight figures on that election — all gave exclusively to pro-Democrat groups. Of the top 25 individual donors — all billionaires or multi-millionaires — 15 of them gave to pro-Democrat groups, and 10 gave to Republican-supporting groups. From this elite group of super-rich donors, the Democratic side got $108.4 million, compared to the Republican side’s $40 million. Soros and Lewis together spent more to defeat Bush than the ten most prolific Republican fat cats combined spent to support the president.

This dynamic was not particular to 2004, and the anti-Bush fever. In 2002 (before McCain-Feingold and the explosion of the 527s), Haim Saban, entertainment mogul and CEO of Saban Capital Group (net worth $2.8 billion), topped the donor list with $9.4 million — every dime to Democrats. Second place was another media mogul Fred Eychaner, president of Newsweb Corporation. Eychaner also gave exclusively to Democrats. Steve Bing was third in 2002. In fact, the top nine donors all gave exclusively to Democrats. Number 10, Roland Arnall of Ameriquest Capital, gave 65 percent to Republicans and 35 percent to Democrats.

The top 25 donors in 2002 gave $4.5 million to Republicans, but $51.5 million to Democrats. Democrats had 20 donors give more than one million dollars. Republicans had four.

In 2000, the story was much the same. Daniel Abraham, head of Slim-Fast, headed the list with $1.6 million. Right behind him was Bernard Schwartz of Loral, with $1.4 million. They both gave exclusively to Democrats. The top five all gave only to Democrats, with number six, Carl Lindner, giving just over half of his $1.2 million in gifts to Democrats. In 2000, you had to go down to number 13 to find a loyal Republican donor. While the Democrats had five people who gave in the seven figures, not a single donor gave a million dollars to the Republican party in 2000.

In 2006, there is little reason to believe the picture will be any different. These numbers, of course, do not track the political leanings of the richest Americans (those numbers are more ambiguous), but the political leanings of the most politically active billionaires. The very rich have many reasons to support Democrats and big business, but we can’t expect the media to get that anytime soon.<hr /></blockquote>

LWW

Drop1
10-16-2007, 09:19 PM
What is the point,Democrats,are smarter than Republicans,and have the ability to make more money? What is the problem? You don't like how they spend it,that is the problem.

wolfdancer
10-16-2007, 10:25 PM
I didn't make it past the 8th grade but know that "Who is the party..." ain't good "grammer" Geez , don't they teach them anything over at AZB?
I recommend the Big blue book...the 12 step program for Alcoholics...wait, wrong book...it's the Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation
http://www.grammarbook.com/
coupled with ...."Eats, Shoots &amp; Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" and dating

Drop1
10-16-2007, 10:36 PM
I think they teach them to goose step.

cushioncrawler
10-17-2007, 02:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> .."Eats, Shoots &amp; Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" and dating.<hr /></blockquote>Woolfy -- In Ozz, it iz -- "eats roots shoots &amp; leaves". madMac.

LWW
10-17-2007, 04:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> What is the point,Democrats,are smarter than Republicans,and have the ability to make more money? What is the problem? You don't like how they spend it,that is the problem. <hr /></blockquote>
The point is that they are hypocrites who believe the only way the American people will help each other is with a bayonet to their back.

LWW

LWW
10-17-2007, 04:14 AM
So, in summary:

1-You have no substance to bring to the discussion.

2-No rebuttal of the data.

3-The arrogance to criticize word placent on top of having no point.

How very tolerant of you.

LWW

DickLeonard
10-17-2007, 07:10 AM
LWW I never donated to either party till last year Bush made me a contributer to the Democratic Party Congressional campaign. I like to feel it was my money that started the end of Bush. The criminal that he is. The unconvicted felon.####

LWW
10-17-2007, 07:12 AM
Well, I'm glad that something motivated you to get involved.

Now, since you made the accusations...

1-What are the "crimes" and let's be specific?
2-Why hasn't the court system charged him?
3-Why hasn't congress impeached him?

LWW

DickLeonard
10-17-2007, 08:22 AM
LWW inider trading sold $800,000 of his free stock in Hakim Oil a month before it went belly up, . Never filed with the SEC within the 30 days required by law. Filed 9 months after and the people at the SEC appointed by George 1 gave him a whitewash. Martha got 9 months for lying, no resolution on George. I am still trying to find that file its missing along with his military record or lack of one.####

LWW
10-17-2007, 08:29 AM
Then why haven't they been charged.

As I remember this has all been investigated to death and found to be false.

LWW

heater451
10-17-2007, 09:14 AM
LWW,

No one ever said that there weren't rich people against the Bush regime--and the current Republican "leadership". If the argument is reduced to one over the other, I'm sure there are far more rich Republicans, than Democrats.

However, I think that since many "Hollywood" liberals get airtime, there might be a greater appearance of more rich people on that side.

Overall, however, if you cut the extremes from the economic curve, you'd probably find far more Republicans in the wealthy end, and more Democrats in the poverty end (although, the South is certainly home to many Republicans, even if they still think Dixie can win the war. . . ) Then, if you take a look at the non-extremes of the wealth curve, I would expect there to be more Republicans in the "upper" middle-class part, than in the lower.

Your question of, "Who [sic] is the party of the rich?" is a bit to black and white, when you consider the many economic and social factors that divide people. And, unfortunately, we always seem to overlook the fact, that those very factors are constantly under life-influence, and subject to change at a moments notice. Worse than that, as those factors change, and while there is a continuous supply of variables that sub-divide us, the trend is towards lumping every individual into one group or the other, while the groups themselves are based on the extremes. For example, no one can really nail down what a "moderate is any more". And, in any political discussion, if you disagree with a proponent of one group, s/he will automatically place you in the other!

C'est la vie. . . .



=================================

Drop1
10-17-2007, 09:23 AM
Investigated!ha ha ha and nothing wrong was found,he he he,now what the hell do you think,that something other wise would have occurred. Slaying Christians,since 1956/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
10-17-2007, 09:41 AM
You may be sure, but you are wrong from every stat I have ever seen...and besides that the DNC is mainly the uber rich.

LWW

bamadog
10-17-2007, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Investigated!ha ha ha and nothing wrong was found,he he he,now what the hell do you think,that something other wise would have occurred. Slaying Christians,since 1956/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Bush's sale of his Harkin Energy stock has been investigated TO DEATH. And NO unlawful acts were found.
The fact that you don't realise it merely shows how ill-informed you are.

LWW
10-17-2007, 10:20 AM
I keep telling you Dawg, they know. They just don't care.

AT least we haven't had to listen to the "9/11 truthers" here.

LWW

LWW
10-17-2007, 10:24 AM
Know what else we haven't heard Dawg?

The idea that we invaded Iraq to get Iraqi baseball players!

It was the mantra on AZB that we invaded because Bush made his fortune in oil he is enriching his oil buddies.

When you point out that he didn't make his coin in oil, but instead in baseball, and swap the truth...baseball...where the lie went...oil...the whole idea comes across as the wrongheaded thinking it always was.

LWW

wolfdancer
10-17-2007, 11:16 AM
That's a pretty well written take on the issues.
As I explained (tried to) to LWW in a pm...
I grew up in an industrial town, read: workingman's town. Steel, Auto and shipping were the major employers. And we all belonged to Unions, which the Democrats catered to, while the Republicans favored the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. Things have changed now since RR and PATCO.....the industry is gone along with the union jobs,
everything is "nowadays made in Japan", and the "old home own don't look the same, as I step down off the train" But one thing hasn't changed, we'll still vote as a Democrat....Another thing that changed the economic dynamics
and widened the gap...was the Viet-Nam war...those that could afford it, got College deferments, those that couldn't went to war. by the time the war was over...the College grads had a head start on their careers....by the time the returning vets got a degree...they were 10 years behind, and their age went against them for new hires, many never could catch up.
I'd say that more sons of Democrats fought that war then sons of Republicans...just as I'd guess more sons of Democrats are being lured in by the signing bonus, and fighting this one, then sons of Republicans.
It's not a political thing, more of a matter of economics.
It's also just my opinion...without any real proof...
If only we had elected Lester Maddox for President...we wouldn't be in this mess. KFC would be the top fast food chain, every business would have to be closed on Sunday, and Church service would be mandatory....

LAMas
10-17-2007, 11:40 AM
More like everything is made in China.

LWW
10-17-2007, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> That's a pretty well written take on the issues.
As I explained (tried to) to LWW in a pm...
I grew up in an industrial town, read: workingman's town. Steel, Auto and shipping were the major employers. And we all belonged to Unions, which the Democrats catered to, while the Republicans favored the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. Things have changed now since RR and PATCO.....the industry is gone along with the union jobs,
everything is "nowadays made in Japan", and the "old home own don't look the same, as I step down off the train" But one thing hasn't changed, we'll still vote as a Democrat...<hr /></blockquote>
WOW!

After the DNC sold out the unions to Mexico and China (Mexico under NAFTA which was bipartisan and China to bet Billy Jeff enough cash to buy enough votes to keep him on AirForce One.) I would have thought you would have woke up by now.

I guess not.

LWW

Drop1
10-17-2007, 01:40 PM
Keep trying Bangadog,so far,you have said nothing.

wolfdancer
10-17-2007, 01:58 PM
bangadog.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
i also think they might both be banging their drums a little too slowly
I'm going to skip all their revisionist history until they come up with a final draft....hold down the fort, will you, in the meantime.....
Beam me up, Scotty!

LWW
10-17-2007, 02:48 PM
How do you keep stuff from getting in your eyes as deep as you bury your head in the sand?

Is it goggles, or a scuba mask, or what?

I've always been curious how you guys do this?

Now, back on topic, I am yet to meet a neoleft membeer here who has the stones to actually discuss something beyond profanity and namecalling?

LWW

bamadog
10-17-2007, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Keep trying Bangadog,so far,you have said nothing. <hr /></blockquote>

Just pointin' out the obvious.

DickLeonard
10-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Wolfdancer I remember the Solid South was Democratic until Lydon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Bill. Of course the Repubs arn't racist, I can't buy that actions speak louder than words. Take Harold Ford for instance RNC didn't play the Race Card. Okay I am dreaming.####

wolfdancer
10-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Dick, growing up North, I didn't encounter any real Racism until our Navy ship hit Fla. and the Ship's Steward, a CPO, had to explain to me why we couldn't have a drink at a bar together.....actually we couldn't drink from the same water fountain. But that's all in the past.
Doing a little Googling...I think Lincoln was our smartest President...he left the Republican Party in 1864...
also an ominous message from the past:
"....this monstrous power has found a refuge in the executive mansion, where, in utter disregard of the Constitution and laws, it seeks to exercise its ancient, far-reaching sway." Charles Sumner....

DickLeonard
10-19-2007, 07:12 AM
Dawg if u believe that report I have a bridge for sale and my uncle in Eithopia has his inheritance that he get get out.####

LWW
10-19-2007, 07:31 AM
Once again, all data which shows you wrong you assume must be wrong.

OTOH anything which backs up your myopic worldview is swalloed whole without question or concern for what poison it contains.

LWW